Private Law
Ali Moghaddam Abrishami; Fereshteh Sheikhvand
Abstract
More than fifty years after Eeredric Eisemann's influential article, the issue of the pathological arbitration clauses still exists. Defects in an arbitration clause may occur in various instances. The task of national courts and/or arbitral tribunals is to determine whether a defective clause is curable ...
Read More
More than fifty years after Eeredric Eisemann's influential article, the issue of the pathological arbitration clauses still exists. Defects in an arbitration clause may occur in various instances. The task of national courts and/or arbitral tribunals is to determine whether a defective clause is curable or incurable. There are great arguments and controversies as to terminology, categorization, and interpretation of defective arbitration clauses. Despite numerous judgments made by different courts in various jurisdictions, ambiguities and conflicting interpretations can still be observed, not only among jurisdictions, but also within a jurisdiction. The ways in which national courts and arbitral tribunals interpret the common intention of the parties depend, to a large extent, on how the clash between policy and principle is considered. The invalidity of an arbitration agreement leads to setting aside the arbitral award and prevents its enforcement. It also affects the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal in both ad hoc and institutional arbitration. Although arbitral institutions provide model clauses with an aim to prevent or at least reduce the number of defective clauses, deviations from model clauses can largely be seen. This article discusses defective arbitration clauses by exploring national courts’ approach and interpreting arbitration clauses referring to the Arbitration Center of the Iran Chamber (ACIC). It concludes that the concept of a pathologically defective clause remains alive in both pro-arbitration and unfriendly jurisdictions, and also suggests some solutions that the ACIC, facing different types of defective clauses, should take into account to address the problem.
Private Law
noura ehsangar; Alireza Yazdanian
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI), as one of the foundational technologies of the modern era, has profoundly affected various dimensions of individual and social life. Features such as autonomous decision-making, continuous learning capabilities and the unpredictability of outcomes have posed new challenges ...
Read More
Artificial intelligence (AI), as one of the foundational technologies of the modern era, has profoundly affected various dimensions of individual and social life. Features such as autonomous decision-making, continuous learning capabilities and the unpredictability of outcomes have posed new challenges for legal systems. Among these, civil liability arising from the operation of AI in non-contractual relations has emerged as one of the most pressing legal questions. In particular, within the Iranian legal system, where no specific regulations on this subject currently exist, the determination of liability requires a reinterpretation of general principles and traditional rules of responsibility. The central question is whether civil liability should be attributed on the basis of ownership of AI systems or, rather, grounded in standards of maintenance, care, and proper use.
This study, with a primary focus on Iranian law and a comparative reference to French law, seeks to clarify the legal nature of AI and to identify the basis of civil liability arising from its operation. The inquiry begins with the question of AI’s legal status: should it be regarded as akin to a human endowed with reason and will, or should it be treated as an object or, in some cases, analogized to an animal? It then examines two main criteria of liability: ownership-based liability and liability grounded in maintenance and care. Finally, the legal relationship between owner and user is analyzed, and the findings are synthesized through different hypothetical scenarios.
The methodology employed is descriptive–analytical, relying on documentary research. Data are drawn from Iranian statutes, legal doctrine, and French law. The focus is on general rules of civil liability contained in the Iranian Civil Code, the Law of Civil Liability, and the Islamic Penal Code, which regulate responsibility for objects, animals, and buildings, and which can be extended to AI systems.
Since considering AI as a human requires attributes such as will, conscience and rationality, features that AI does not yet possess, the more realistic approach is to treat AI as an “object” capable of ownership and control. Accordingly, the framework of liability for objects provides a suitable analytical lens. Within this framework, two approaches emerge:
Ownership-based liability: Under the strict liability theory, mere ownership of an object (here, the AI system) suffices to establish responsibility, even if the owner had no involvement in the harm caused. This approach is justified by the aim of maximizing protection for victims.
Maintenance and proper use-based liability: Here, liability depends on the fault or negligence of the user or possessor. The key element is actual control and the duty of care at the time the damage occurs. This approach aligns with Article 334 of the Iranian Civil Code and Articles 512, 522, and 524 of the Islamic Penal Code, which emphasize the roles of “possessor” and “controller.”
The central issue is whether liability requires the unification of ownership and use in a single person, or whether these attributes, when separated, shift responsibility to different parties. Two situations are examined:
Unity of owner and user: In this case, no distinction arises between the two criteria, since both legal and practical authority are vested in one person. Iranian law, particularly Article 333 of the Civil Code, establishes that mere ownership coupled with effective control suffices for liability. Analogy with liability for animals reinforces this conclusion.
Separation of owner and user: Two scenarios emerge:
Damage due to the user’s fault: If the user exercises actual control and has a duty of care at the time of the accident, liability is attributed to the user. This position is consistent with the theory of fault in maintenance and with French jurisprudence.
Damage due to unforeseeable and autonomous behavior of AI: Where harm results from AI’s self-learning or self-correcting behavior, beyond the foresight of either owner or user, the fault-based model loses its explanatory power. Two competing views arise:
Responsibility of the owner under strict liability: Pursuant to Article 523 of the Islamic Penal Code, even when use is authorized, the owner remains liable unless the causal link is severed. This approach simplifies the identification of the liable party but risks unfair outcomes.
Transfer of responsibility to the user as the actual possessor: Drawing on Articles 334 of the Civil Code and 512 and 522 of the Islamic Penal Code, which highlight “possessor” and “controller,” this view argues that liability should fall on the party exercising real control. This prevents imposing liability on an owner who is effectively disconnected from the harmful act and aligns more closely with principles of fairness.
The contribution of this study lies in proposing a hybrid model that allocates civil liability for AI according to the circumstances of the harm: liability falls on the user in cases of negligent maintenance or misuse, while in cases of unforeseeable and autonomous AI behavior, strict liability of the owner or a functional transfer of liability to the user may apply.
Ultimately, civil liability in the field of AI cannot rest solely on either ownership or maintenance; rather, it requires a nuanced combination of both. Iranian and French law, through existing provisions, provide avenues to extend traditional rules to these new contexts. However, to avoid unjust outcomes, legislators must move beyond traditional frameworks and adopt specific regulations for AI, including mandatory insurance schemes, explicit duties for users, and protective mechanisms for victims.
Private Law
hmyon mafi; vahid Ahmadvand
Abstract
The growing number of traffic accidents in recent decades has significantly increased the number of individuals affected by such incidents, both as direct victims and as at-fault drivers. Traditional legal and insurance frameworks in Iran, as in many jurisdictions, have long excluded the at-fault driver ...
Read More
The growing number of traffic accidents in recent decades has significantly increased the number of individuals affected by such incidents, both as direct victims and as at-fault drivers. Traditional legal and insurance frameworks in Iran, as in many jurisdictions, have long excluded the at-fault driver from the scope of compensation, treating them as the culpable party rather than as a potential victim. From the standpoint of social and distributive justice, however, this exclusion appears illogical and inconsistent with the principles of equality and social solidarity. The central purpose of this study is to examine the legal foundation, scope, and limitations of the insurer’s liability for bodily injuries sustained by the at-fault driver under Iranian law. In particular, the research investigates whether the Law on Mandatory Insurance of Losses Incurred on Third Parties Resulting from Motor Vehicle Accidents (2016) effectively transformed the position of the at-fault driver from a liable party into a protected insured person within a collective compensation system.
Methodology:
This research adopts a qualitative and analytical-legal approach, employing both descriptive and doctrinal methods. First, it reviews the historical evolution of Iranian legislation concerning compulsory motor vehicle insurance and examines how the coverage of the at-fault driver has emerged within the broader framework of social protection law. Second, the study conducts a comparative analysis of relevant legal instruments, including paragraph (b) of Article 115 of the Fifth Five-Year Development Plan Act (2010), which first introduced the concept of insurance coverage for at-fault drivers. The research also explores the interpretive challenges posed by the 2016 Insurance Law, particularly concerning the meaning and limits of the insurer’s obligation: Judicial decisions issued by Iranian courts, especially appellate rulings interpreting Articles 3, 4, and 6 of the 2016 Act, are systematically analyzed to identify prevailing judicial trends. The methodology combines statutory interpretation, case law analysis, and theoretical reasoning to evaluate the extent of the insurer’s liability toward the at-fault driver. Additionally, the study employs principles of economic analysis of law to assess the broader social and financial implications of extending insurance coverage to at-fault drivers.
Findings:
The analysis reveals that the Iranian legislature has gradually shifted from a purely fault-based liability system to a more solidarity-oriented compensatory framework. Paragraph (b) of Article 115 of the Fifth Five-Year Development Plan Act (2010) was the first legal step toward recognizing the at-fault driver as a potential beneficiary of insurance protection. This policy was later solidified by the Law on Mandatory Insurance of 2016, which explicitly mandated that all motor vehicle insurance policies include personal accident coverage for the driver at fault.
However, judicial interpretation of the scope of this coverage has not been entirely consistent. Some courts have adopted a restrictive interpretation, limiting the insurer’s liability to the precise terms stipulated in the insurance policy, arguing that extending coverage beyond explicit contractual limits may destabilize the insurance market. Conversely, other courts have taken a broad and purposive approach, interpreting the law in light of its social protection objectives, thereby affirming the insurer’s liability even in cases of partial or contributory fault.
From the perspective of policy analysis, the inclusion of the at-fault driver within the framework of compulsory insurance serves multiple social and economic functions: it prevents uncompensated injuries, reduces reliance on public welfare resources, and enhances public trust in the insurance system. Nonetheless, such expansion also raises concerns regarding moral hazard, potential premium inflation, and the financial equilibrium of insurers.
Innovation and Contribution:
The innovative aspect of this study lies in its integrative analysis of statutory provisions, judicial rulings, and theoretical justifications related to the insurance coverage of at-fault drivers in Iran. Unlike prior research that has either focused solely on the doctrinal dimensions or on the economic rationale of insurance, this paper bridges both perspectives to provide a comprehensive understanding of the insurer’s liability.
Furthermore, the study introduces a balanced interpretive model that reconciles social justice considerations with the economic sustainability of the insurance industry. It argues that the insurer’s liability should be neither strictly limited to contractual wording nor unboundedly expansive; instead, it must be interpreted in harmony with the social protection goals of the 2016 Insurance Law. This model contributes to ongoing debates in Iranian legal scholarship concerning the boundaries of social insurance and the role of private insurers in public welfare mechanisms.
Conclusion:
The research concludes that the inclusion of at-fault drivers within the scope of compulsory insurance reflects a paradigm shift in Iranian legal policy—from an individualistic, fault-based model toward a collective and solidarity-based system of risk distribution. The Law on Mandatory Insurance of 2016 aims to treat the at-fault driver as a secondary victim deserving of protection rather than exclusion. Nevertheless, the stability and effectiveness of this legal framework depend on adopting a measured interpretation of the insurer’s obligations—one that maintains the financial integrity of insurance institutions while ensuring comprehensive victim compensation.
In summary, the insurer’s liability for bodily injuries sustained by at-fault drivers should be interpreted in light of three guiding principles: (1) the principle of social solidarity, which supports collective risk sharing; (2) the principle of legal security, which requires predictable and stable insurance obligations; and (3) the principle of economic efficiency, which preserves the financial sustainability of the insurance system.
Through this balanced approach, Iranian law can achieve a fair equilibrium between justice for victims and the economic viability of insurers, thereby promoting a more coherent and humane system of compensation for all participants in road traffic accidents.
Private Law
muhammadmahdi hamidi
Abstract
The aim of this research is to analyze the scope of bankruptcy liquidation authorities' powers in collecting a bankrupt wife’s financial claims from her husband. According to bankruptcy law, once a judgment is issued, all the bankrupt person's financial rights are transferred to the liquidation ...
Read More
The aim of this research is to analyze the scope of bankruptcy liquidation authorities' powers in collecting a bankrupt wife’s financial claims from her husband. According to bankruptcy law, once a judgment is issued, all the bankrupt person's financial rights are transferred to the liquidation body to meet obligations. This raises the question: Can the liquidation authority, as the legal representative, collect financial rights arising from the marital relationship—such as dowry, arrears or ongoing alimony, compensation for the marital period, asset division, compensation in cases of khula or mubarat divorce, and return of refundable gifts?
The research distinguishes between the wife’s purely financial rights and her personal rights, using Imamite jurisprudence and Iranian civil and commercial law. The goal is to identify when the liquidation authority can collect financial claims, and when such claims are linked to the wife’s personal identity or family integrity, preventing collection. This study seeks to provide a framework that ensures fairness between bankrupt creditors and the protection of the family unit.
Methodology
The research uses a descriptive-analytical approach, collecting theoretical data from reliable sources such as laws, regulations, judicial opinions, jurisprudential works, and academic research. The study then uses content analysis and logical reasoning to examine the legal and jurisprudential aspects of liquidation authorities collecting financial claims from a bankrupt wife. The findings are presented in an inductive and comparative manner to clarify the scope of these authorities' powers and distinguish between transferable and non-transferable financial rights in the context of a female merchant’s bankruptcy.
Findings
Dowry**: If the dowry is a specific item, it belongs to the wife and can be seized. If it is a generic item not yet delivered to the wife, the liquidation authority can collect it from the husband.
Ownership of Dowry**: Upon marriage, the wife gains ownership of the dowry, though half of it is precarious and returns to the husband in case of divorce. If the wife declares bankruptcy and a divorce occurs after, the dowry, if specific, is considered lost, and the husband must account for half its value in creditor distribution. If the dowry is a generic good and undelivered, the husband must give it to the liquidation authority and claim half its value in the creditors’ pool.
Mahr al-Mithl, Mahr al-Mut'ah, and half of the husband's assets, if the conditions are met, can be claimed by the bankruptcy authorities, if conditions are met.
It is not possible for the liquidation authority to collect Ujrati-l-Mithl and Nafaqah on behalf of the wife, as these rights are linked to her personal identity. The liquidation authority cannot act as a representative in these matters; moreover, practically and evidentially, collecting them on behalf of the wife is also difficult.
Khula or Mubarat Divorce**: In these cases, compensation paid by the bankrupt wife is invalid. If the husband received such compensation, he must return it to the liquidation authority. If reconciliation is still possible, the husband can reverse the divorce. If the waiting period has passed, the compensation becomes part of the creditors’ pool.
Gifts Given by the Husband**: After the wife’s bankruptcy declaration, the husband cannot reverse any gifts given to her.
Gifts Given by the Wife**: If gifts from the wife to the husband are significant, such as a house, they can be reversed by bankruptcy authorities. Otherwise, gifts that don’t substantially impact debt settlement cannot be reclaimed.
Innovations
Combining Bankruptcy Law and Wife’s Financial Rights**: This research integrates the seemingly separate legal areas of bankruptcy and the financial rights of the wife, offering a new framework to understand the collection of financial claims by liquidation authorities.
Distinguishing Financial and Personal Rights**: The study clearly differentiates between financial rights (like dowry and alimony) and personal rights (like family-related rights), which are crucial when dealing with a bankrupt wife’s claims. This distinction informs the legal limitations and authorizations of liquidation authorities.
Jurisprudential and Legal Analysis**: The research combines jurisprudential principles with legal analysis, showing how Imamite jurisprudence can be applied to bankruptcy law in Iran, facilitating a comparative understanding of Iranian civil law, commercial law, and jurisprudence.
Structured Framework for Collecting Financial Rights**: This study proposes a structured framework for determining which financial rights can be collected by the liquidation authority. This framework can serve as a practical guide for judges and bankruptcy authorities handling similar disputes.
Case-Specific Study of Bankruptcy**: The findings are based on a comparative, case-specific approach, offering new insights into bankruptcy claims, particularly regarding specific dowry, compensation, and gifts in divorce cases.
Legal and Ethical Barriers**: The research examines legal and ethical barriers that prevent the liquidation authority from acting as a representative for certain claims. These include social and ethical concerns tied to the wife’s personal and family identity.
Balancing Creditors’ Rights and Family Integrity**: This research seeks to balance the protection of bankrupt creditors’ rights with the need to preserve the integrity of the family and protect the wife’s personal rights. It aims for a fair and just approach within Iranian law.
Conclusion
This study analyzes the possibility of collecting a bankrupt wife’s financial claims from her husband through the liquidation authorities. It differentiates between financial claims (such as dowry and asset division) that can be collected, and personal rights (like arrears of alimony) that cannot be collected due to their connection with the wife’s identity and family relations. The research emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between financial and non-financial rights, particularly in cases of khula or mubarat divorce, and the return of refundable gifts.
The study outlines legal and ethical barriers to liquidation authorities’ involvement in cases where rights are closely tied to the wife’s personal identity. It provides a practical framework to determine which financial rights are collectible, contributing to the regulation of bankruptcy law and promoting fairness between creditors and the protection of family integrity. This framework can assist judges and bankruptcy authorities in resolving disputes, ensuring a balance between creditors’ economic rights and the preservation of family dignity.
Private Law
Roohollah Akhoundi Roshanavand; Hoda Moshfeghi
Abstract
In the present era, various countries consider industrial and intellectual property rights very valuable in producing new, efficient, and creative works in the industrial, economic, and even artistic and cultural fields. For this reason, industrial intellectual creations are becoming increasingly important. ...
Read More
In the present era, various countries consider industrial and intellectual property rights very valuable in producing new, efficient, and creative works in the industrial, economic, and even artistic and cultural fields. For this reason, industrial intellectual creations are becoming increasingly important. Governments have been and are trying to provide the necessary protection for industrial property by enacting laws at the domestic and international levels. How to deal with violators of industrial property rights and methods of compensating for damages resulting from their violation are among the most effective legal factors in the field of industrial property protection. The most important protection of industrial property rights is to establish civil liability for violators of these rights and oblige them to compensate damages of the suffered.
Purpose In this research, we are trying to examine the methods of compensating for losses resulting from the violation of industrial property rights by focusing on the basis of civil liability for the violation of industrial property rights through a study of relevant international documents. What methods of compensation has the legislator foreseen for compensation of industrial property infringement? Are these methods similar to other methods of compensation for civil damages? Do the general rules of civil liability regarding the provisions and effects of compensation for damages also apply to violations of these rights? Are these methods sufficient to achieve the main purpose (providing transparent and appropriate legal enforcement guarantees to prevent the proliferation of relevant lawsuits)? What is the achievement of a comparative study with relevant international documents in this field for the national legal system? It all depends on the voluntary basis for compensation of damage and civil liability for infringement of industrial property rights.
Methods To answer these questions, this research was conducted using an analytical-comparative method. Based on two parts:1- The basis of civil liability for infringement of industrial property rights and 2- civil enforcement guarantee (methods of compensation for damages) for infringement of industrial property rights in the Iranian legal system and international documents.
FindingsIt can be said that industrial property rights are rights arising from intellectual creations that are economically related to industry, commerce, and agriculture, and it is the source of both material and spiritual rights for their creators. Any violation of the material and moral rights of industrial property owners or their representatives is referred to as "infringement of industrial property rights," which may occur in various forms. In the "Protection of Industrial Property" law approved on 01/03/1403, the legislator, while addressing the types of industrial property rights, also stated how each of these rights can be violated. With the approval of the Industrial Property Protection Law in 1403, the legislator, in Article 127 and the note under Article 132 of this law, referred compensation for damages resulting from the violation of industrial property rights to the rules of Zaman. It seems that, contrary to what is known about the basis of fault and its principle in civil liability in the country's legal doctrines, the rules of Zaman stipulated in this law refer to the main basis of civil liability in the Iranian legal system, and that is nothing other than the rule and basis of Lazarar. Lazarar basis, in comparison to fault basis, brings us closer to the goal of civil liability, which is to compensate the injured party. In the field of industrial property protection, various treaties and instruments have been adopted and are administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Among the various international conventions and treaties in this regard, we mention the methods of compensation foreseen in the most important of them, namely the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, adopted in 1883, and the TRIPS Agreement, adopted in 1994. A review of the legal provisions related to the types of infringement of industrial property rights in the Paris Convention and the TRIPS Agreement shows that these documents merely allege the occurrence of a harmful act by the right holder (plaintiff) and providing sufficient evidence and documents proving the violation of her rights as a result of another act, the possibility of applying performance guarantees and compensating the right holder in various ways is foreseen. In this regard, there is no requirement to prove the occurrence of fault on the part of the infringer of the right or the occurrence of a direct violation. Thus, it seems that the basis of civil liability for violation of industrial property rights in these international documents is nothing other than strict liability. In the Iranian legal system, in the event of a violation of rights arising from industrial property, the owner of these rights can, by citing the principle of non-harm, file a lawsuit against any person who has infringed on her rights without her permission or has performed an act that could lead to an infringement of her rights or has exploited her industrial property rights without her permission, and demand compensation for her damages. In general, the main methods of compensation in industrial property infringement claims in Iranian law can be divided into two categories: monetary compensation and interim measures. The methods of compensation provided for in the Paris Convention and the TRIPS agreement can be categorized as compensation, interim measures, suspension of clearance of goods, and removal and withdrawal of goods from trade channels. Innovation In Iranian law, the basis of civil liability has always been a point of contention among jurists. Considering the totality of jurisprudential and legal opinions as well as various legal texts, we are guided to the conclusion that the main basis of civil liability in Iranian law, including in industrial property law, is the basis of Lazarar. By choosing the Lazarar basis as the main basis for civil liability for infringers of industrial property rights, the right holder in a lawsuit claiming damages resulting from the infringement of these rights is exempted from the burden of proving the defendant's fault and can claim damages simply by proving that the defendant committed a harmful act and that she suffered harm as a result of that act. Choosing this basis in Iranian law is more consistent with the nature of intellectual property and the provisions of the Paris Convention and the TRIPS Agreement, and is a step towards harmonizing the Iranian legal system with other international systems and documents. Conclusion The most important protection of industrial property rights is to establish civil liability for violators of these rights. In this study, while choosing the Lazarar basis as the main basis of civil liability in the Iranian legal system, we believe that the Lazarar basis takes precedence over other bases in this regard when the holder of industrial property rights refers to the infringer of these rights, a basis that international documents also follow. However, the limitations and inadequacies of the remedies envisaged in Iranian laws for compensation make it even more apparent that these laws need to be revised and that Iran should join the TRIPS Agreement, which provides more comprehensive provisions in this regard.
Private Law
Hossein Khanlari Bahnamiri; Mohammad Hossein TAGHIPOUR,; , Hamed Aghaaminifashmi,
Abstract
One of the current concerns of humanity is the protection of privacy related to metadata. Data is not secure even when processed by the most advanced and powerful companies with financial resources, which makes it more necessary to pay attention to data and metadata in the new era. Metadata is data about ...
Read More
One of the current concerns of humanity is the protection of privacy related to metadata. Data is not secure even when processed by the most advanced and powerful companies with financial resources, which makes it more necessary to pay attention to data and metadata in the new era. Metadata is data about data that is created by individuals to achieve a specific goal or function. In fact, metadata is a systematic way that makes information resources accessible and understandable to users. Metadata, such as smartphone metadata, is one of the most important privacy concerns. The concern for citizens of society alike is that metadata, much like data, can reveal sensitive and personal information of a user. In line with the advancement of technology and information technology, the European Union has taken very useful and effective measures to protect the privacy of data and metadata and has pursued the issue of metadata and privacy seriously and in a disciplined manner since 2018, while in Iran this discussion has not been examined in detail and comprehensively; of course, perhaps the risks of violating this privacy have not yet been taken seriously. Therefore, the main question of the research is whether privacy in the field of metadata, as protected in the legal system of the European Union, has been examined in the legal system of Iran? The research method in this article is analytical-comparative, and library resources and online articles and books have been used. The findings show that by examining all Iranian laws regarding the protection of privacy and data, it can be claimed that the discussion of metadata has not been included in these laws at all, and some of the related laws have only addressed data in cyberspace and the importance of privacy. In this regard, although the E-Commerce Law is the best law in providing protection on data privacy issues in Iran, it falls short in respecting important principles of data privacy protection. In fact, the E-Commerce Law, which contains some provisions on data messages, is insufficient in protecting electronic consumers. Iran needs a specific law on the protection of personal data and, of course, metadata. The provisions in the E-Commerce Law do not generally meet some prominent principles of data privacy. For example, it does not fully protect individuals’ personal information and only identifies sensitive personal data such as medical and health data. E-business websites collect information online, but most of them do not have any policy/privacy statement, or at least this policy is not available online, such as the online store Digi Kala. The E-Commerce Law constitutes the primary law in Iran that contains some provisions (Articles 59-61) on the protection of personal data. However, for such a law, the protection of personal data is limited to a specific context, namely, in the context of electronic consumers who deal with online commerce, and there is no mention or attempt to frame the rules on metadata and privacy in this law, which is the most relevant law in Iran in the field of data and privacy. However, regarding privacy and metadata in the European Union, it can be said that the e-Privacy and Communications Regulation is located alongside the European Union Data Protection Law, which are two relatively separate and, of course, complementary laws in the field of metadata and privacy. In fact, the e-Privacy and Communications Regulation implements a European directive, also known as the “e-Privacy Directive”. This institution recognizes that widespread public access to mobile digital networks and the Internet creates new opportunities for businesses and users, but also new risks to their privacy. The European Union is replacing the current Privacy Act with a new Privacy Regulation to align with the EU version of the Data Protection Act. Among the features of this directive are: ensuring the security of electronic communications services, ensuring the confidentiality of communications regarding traffic data, requiring the anonymity of traffic data, requiring full billing by Internet service providers, requiring consent for the processing of users’ static data, and other such matters. As a result, in EU law, electronic communications and metadata privacy laws have a very advanced, comprehensive and enforceable framework, and are being developed with three approaches: (1) service-oriented, (2) data-oriented, and (3) value-oriented, and with respect to the principles governing these approaches such as the principles of transparency, trust, non-discrimination, ownership and control, security, minimum access, informed consent, which create the right of access, the right to rectification, the right to be forgotten (deleted), the right to restriction of processing, the right to data portability, and the right to object for individuals. Although each approach has its strengths and weaknesses, the focus of all three approaches has been on protecting citizens' privacy from metadata. This issue has been clearly addressed in European Union law, but the Iranian legal system, apart from the issuance of an executive directive to improve the protection of user privacy and the method of collecting, processing, and maintaining user information in open space systems and platforms, which was developed with a service-oriented approach, has not addressed much about the importance of metadata and privacy in the new era, and the existing laws are still in their early stages and lack executive details and a supervisory Institution. Therefore, it is recommended to develop a comprehensive law similar to the GDPR, establish an independent supervisory body, or require companies to be transparent in their privacy policies, or enact a specific and comprehensive law using the approaches mentioned in European Union laws, especially the General Data Protection Regulation, which guarantees the rights of data subjects.
